Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

i think the most interesting aspect of this is that in corporate america, regular layoffs are business as usual. law firms maybe moving from the 1970's to the 1980's and no longer retaining even low performers "just 'cause." this "new normal" is actually 30 years old in every other industry. i can't help but think firms adjusting to reflect longstanding structural changes is a welcome sight and long overdue. weil is probably accurate to say they are doing this from a position of strength and it will probably help them moving forward relative to all these other firms whose management doesn't know how to run a business and choose to stay willfully ignorant...

2014 wrote:Sort of related question to this. Going into OCI, for bros interested in bankruptcy, should we worried enough to consider getting interested in some other practice area?

I would say no, but there is a bias there because I'm on my way into a major restructuring practice (not Weil, think Kirkland/Davis Polk/Jones Day). Restructuring has slowed somewhat, but it's not clear that the situation is any better in other practice areas, especially corporate. I suspect Weil's situation is somewhat anomalous because the size of Lehman's chapter 11 was completely unprecedented. It was also a long-lasting case. It must have really inflated the firm's ranks.

AllTheLawz wrote:Serious question.... are law students ACTUALLY interested in bankruptcy/how the hell do you know you are interested in bankruptcy?

I knew I wanted to do bankruptcy. I have a finance background, read the financial news and understood the kind of deals that go on, worked in the practice area 1L and 2L year, took three bankruptcy courses in law school plus secured transactions, etc. There are people in law school that are reasonably tuned in to finance and business such that they can make an educated guess as to what practice area would suit them.

jitsrenzo wrote:What does this mean for Restructuring groups at other firms?

c3pO4 wrote:i think the most interesting aspect of this is that in corporate america, regular layoffs are business as usual. law firms maybe moving from the 1970's to the 1980's and no longer retaining even low performers "just 'cause." this "new normal" is actually 30 years old in every other industry. i can't help but think firms adjusting to reflect longstanding structural changes is a welcome sight and long overdue. weil is probably accurate to say they are doing this from a position of strength and it will probably help them moving forward relative to all these other firms whose management doesn't know how to run a business and choose to stay willfully ignorant...

This may come as a complete shock to you, but it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs, rather than spend a lot of money in order to hire midlevels and seniors if the market picks up again (perhaps at an increased pay rate). If not, attrition can thin the herd.

IIRC, Dewey and Howrey both claimed until the day they died that they were merely rightsizing. Weil won't go the way of those firms, but to say that cutting jobs means that management knows how to run a business is foolish. In fact, I read layoffs as an indication that management screwed up somewhere along the line.

c3pO4 wrote:i think the most interesting aspect of this is that in corporate america, regular layoffs are business as usual. law firms maybe moving from the 1970's to the 1980's and no longer retaining even low performers "just 'cause." this "new normal" is actually 30 years old in every other industry. i can't help but think firms adjusting to reflect longstanding structural changes is a welcome sight and long overdue. weil is probably accurate to say they are doing this from a position of strength and it will probably help them moving forward relative to all these other firms whose management doesn't know how to run a business and choose to stay willfully ignorant...

This may come as a complete shock to you, but it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs, rather than spend a lot of money in order to hire midlevels and seniors if the market picks up again (perhaps at an increased pay rate). If not, attrition can thin the herd.

IIRC, Dewey and Howrey both claimed until the day they died that they were merely rightsizing. Weil won't go the way of those firms, but to say that cutting jobs means that management knows how to run a business is foolish. In fact, I read layoffs as an indication that management screwed up somewhere along the line.

name a fortune 100 company that doesn't conduct layoffs of low performing groups and/or people at least once every couple years

c3pO4 wrote:i think the most interesting aspect of this is that in corporate america, regular layoffs are business as usual. law firms maybe moving from the 1970's to the 1980's and no longer retaining even low performers "just 'cause." this "new normal" is actually 30 years old in every other industry. i can't help but think firms adjusting to reflect longstanding structural changes is a welcome sight and long overdue. weil is probably accurate to say they are doing this from a position of strength and it will probably help them moving forward relative to all these other firms whose management doesn't know how to run a business and choose to stay willfully ignorant...

This may come as a complete shock to you, but it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs, rather than spend a lot of money in order to hire midlevels and seniors if the market picks up again (perhaps at an increased pay rate). If not, attrition can thin the herd.

IIRC, Dewey and Howrey both claimed until the day they died that they were merely rightsizing. Weil won't go the way of those firms, but to say that cutting jobs means that management knows how to run a business is foolish. In fact, I read layoffs as an indication that management screwed up somewhere along the line.

name a fortune 100 company that doesn't conduct layoffs of low performing groups and/or people at least once every couple years

Not that I disagree with your premise, but America's two most successful (arguably) companies, Apple and Google, haven't conducted layoffs in years (I think Apple's last round was when they thought they were done for good in the late 90's). In Google's case, I don't think they've ever had mass layoffs. Their management structure makes it such that if a product that a team is developing is no longer profitable or doesn't succeed as planned, they can be reabsorbed.

c3pO4 wrote:i think the most interesting aspect of this is that in corporate america, regular layoffs are business as usual. law firms maybe moving from the 1970's to the 1980's and no longer retaining even low performers "just 'cause." this "new normal" is actually 30 years old in every other industry. i can't help but think firms adjusting to reflect longstanding structural changes is a welcome sight and long overdue. weil is probably accurate to say they are doing this from a position of strength and it will probably help them moving forward relative to all these other firms whose management doesn't know how to run a business and choose to stay willfully ignorant...

This may come as a complete shock to you, but it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs, rather than spend a lot of money in order to hire midlevels and seniors if the market picks up again (perhaps at an increased pay rate). If not, attrition can thin the herd.

IIRC, Dewey and Howrey both claimed until the day they died that they were merely rightsizing. Weil won't go the way of those firms, but to say that cutting jobs means that management knows how to run a business is foolish. In fact, I read layoffs as an indication that management screwed up somewhere along the line.

name a fortune 100 company that doesn't conduct layoffs of low performing groups and/or people at least once every couple years

Name a Fortune 100 company that is a partnership, performs exactly one service that only people with one particular educational background are qualified to do, only hires people en masse as a class once every year, and has a rigid up-or-out practice making the average employee tenure only three or four years. It's an asinine comparison.

Fresh Prince wrote:There are tons of big firm associates on this forum. They know how busy their firms are. You get worried when you have super long stretches of time with no billable work (and I mean months on end).

At my firm, and I think this is true for a lot of other firms, transactional work was slow for the first 2-3 months this year, but it all picked up right back at around the end of March. Lots of big deals happening.

Someone above was talking about the fed increasing interest rates and that influencing deal flow because money will no longer be cheap. I guess that's true in a normal economy, but this economy isn't normal. Lot's of companies and funds sitting on mountains of cash and ready to do some M&A. To quote a very frequently mentioned phrase in the transactional world, there's a lot of dry powder but not that many acting on it.

Interest rates won't change that, really.

Biglaw is the best job if it's between 30-50 hours billed per week. Anything less and you're freaking out. Anything more and it's hell. The problem with M&A work is that it's rarely between 30-50.

c3pO4 wrote:i think the most interesting aspect of this is that in corporate america, regular layoffs are business as usual. law firms maybe moving from the 1970's to the 1980's and no longer retaining even low performers "just 'cause." this "new normal" is actually 30 years old in every other industry. i can't help but think firms adjusting to reflect longstanding structural changes is a welcome sight and long overdue. weil is probably accurate to say they are doing this from a position of strength and it will probably help them moving forward relative to all these other firms whose management doesn't know how to run a business and choose to stay willfully ignorant...

At my firm we routinely lose 20%+ of our associates each year... please, tell me more about how law firms have insufficient turnover.

c3pO4 wrote:i think the most interesting aspect of this is that in corporate america, regular layoffs are business as usual. law firms maybe moving from the 1970's to the 1980's and no longer retaining even low performers "just 'cause." this "new normal" is actually 30 years old in every other industry. i can't help but think firms adjusting to reflect longstanding structural changes is a welcome sight and long overdue. weil is probably accurate to say they are doing this from a position of strength and it will probably help them moving forward relative to all these other firms whose management doesn't know how to run a business and choose to stay willfully ignorant...

This may come as a complete shock to you, but it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs, rather than spend a lot of money in order to hire midlevels and seniors if the market picks up again (perhaps at an increased pay rate). If not, attrition can thin the herd.

IIRC, Dewey and Howrey both claimed until the day they died that they were merely rightsizing. Weil won't go the way of those firms, but to say that cutting jobs means that management knows how to run a business is foolish. In fact, I read layoffs as an indication that management screwed up somewhere along the line.

name a fortune 100 company that doesn't conduct layoffs of low performing groups and/or people at least once every couple years

You have no evidence that the failure of the groups in Houston and Boston was caused by the associates. Perhaps Weil management made a mistake to grow too quickly in those areas. Not what I would call good management.

Law firms aren't publicly traded. They don't have to keep earnings up for the market. Several firms froze compensation during the recession rather than lay people off. Obviously, partners will flee the firm if they don't feel like they are being treated well enough, but it's probably not a good long-term business strategy to stock your company with people who are one foot out the door all the time.

c3pO4 wrote:i think the most interesting aspect of this is that in corporate america, regular layoffs are business as usual. law firms maybe moving from the 1970's to the 1980's and no longer retaining even low performers "just 'cause." this "new normal" is actually 30 years old in every other industry. i can't help but think firms adjusting to reflect longstanding structural changes is a welcome sight and long overdue. weil is probably accurate to say they are doing this from a position of strength and it will probably help them moving forward relative to all these other firms whose management doesn't know how to run a business and choose to stay willfully ignorant...

This may come as a complete shock to you, but it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs, rather than spend a lot of money in order to hire midlevels and seniors if the market picks up again (perhaps at an increased pay rate). If not, attrition can thin the herd.

IIRC, Dewey and Howrey both claimed until the day they died that they were merely rightsizing. Weil won't go the way of those firms, but to say that cutting jobs means that management knows how to run a business is foolish. In fact, I read layoffs as an indication that management screwed up somewhere along the line.

name a fortune 100 company that doesn't conduct layoffs of low performing groups and/or people at least once every couple years

You have no evidence that the failure of the groups in Houston and Boston was caused by the associates. Perhaps Weil management made a mistake to grow too quickly in those areas. Not what I would call good management.

Law firms aren't publicly traded. They don't have to keep earnings up for the market. Several firms froze compensation during the recession rather than lay people off. Obviously, partners will flee the firm if they don't feel like they are being treated well enough, but it's probably not a good long-term business strategy to stock your company with people who are one foot out the door all the time.

Of course we know this is happening- we've known for a long time now. But there's awareness, and then there's celebrations it because it's "long overdue" and it was "finally time those do-gooder corporate law firm partners realized that you should conduct layoffs every few years." Many people on this forum work for firms like Weil or have friends or SOs who work for firms like Weil, and coming into a thread proclaiming that this is just the greatest advancement in the legal profession since the Blackberry is a dick move.

There's really nothing that demands that biglaw firms operate the way they do except for corporate culture and the values of the boomers who are running these companies.

timbs4339 wrote:This may come as a complete shock to you, but it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs, rather than spend a lot of money in order to hire midlevels and seniors if the market picks up again (perhaps at an increased pay rate). If not, attrition can thin the herd.

IIRC, Dewey and Howrey both claimed until the day they died that they were merely rightsizing. Weil won't go the way of those firms, but to say that cutting jobs means that management knows how to run a business is foolish. In fact, I read layoffs as an indication that management screwed up somewhere along the line.

Sure, firms pay partners less, so rainmakers leave, and now all the associates are out of work instead of just some of them.

timbs4339 wrote:This may come as a complete shock to you, but it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs, rather than spend a lot of money in order to hire midlevels and seniors if the market picks up again (perhaps at an increased pay rate). If not, attrition can thin the herd.

IIRC, Dewey and Howrey both claimed until the day they died that they were merely rightsizing. Weil won't go the way of those firms, but to say that cutting jobs means that management knows how to run a business is foolish. In fact, I read layoffs as an indication that management screwed up somewhere along the line.

Sure, firms pay partners less, so rainmakers leave, and now all the associates are out of work instead of just some of them.

I fucking hate it when people say that.

Nothing about "it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs" is inconsistent with that. There are firms where some rainmakers bring in much more business than their compensation would suggest, and those rainmakers do not flee en masse to firms with more flexible compensation structures. It's likely there are firms where partners have indeed taken lower draws in order to avoid layoffs, but nobody is putting that story in the WSJ.

Last edited by timbs4339 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

timbs4339 wrote:This may come as a complete shock to you, but it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs, rather than spend a lot of money in order to hire midlevels and seniors if the market picks up again (perhaps at an increased pay rate). If not, attrition can thin the herd.

IIRC, Dewey and Howrey both claimed until the day they died that they were merely rightsizing. Weil won't go the way of those firms, but to say that cutting jobs means that management knows how to run a business is foolish. In fact, I read layoffs as an indication that management screwed up somewhere along the line.

Sure, firms pay partners less, so rainmakers leave, and now all the associates are out of work instead of just some of them.

I fucking hate it when people say that.

Nothing about "it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs" is inconsistent with that. There are firms where some rainmakers bring in much more business than their compensation would suggest, and those rainmakers do not flee en masse to firms with more flexible compensation structures.

timbs4339 wrote:This may come as a complete shock to you, but it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs, rather than spend a lot of money in order to hire midlevels and seniors if the market picks up again (perhaps at an increased pay rate). If not, attrition can thin the herd.

IIRC, Dewey and Howrey both claimed until the day they died that they were merely rightsizing. Weil won't go the way of those firms, but to say that cutting jobs means that management knows how to run a business is foolish. In fact, I read layoffs as an indication that management screwed up somewhere along the line.

Sure, firms pay partners less, so rainmakers leave, and now all the associates are out of work instead of just some of them.

I fucking hate it when people say that.

Nothing about "it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs" is inconsistent with that. There are firms where some rainmakers bring in much more business than their compensation would suggest, and those rainmakers do not flee en masse to firms with more flexible compensation structures.

Name a Fortune 100 company that is a partnership, performs exactly one service that only people with one particular educational background are qualified to do, only hires people en masse as a class once every year, and has a rigid up-or-out practice making the average employee tenure only three or four years. It's an asinine comparison.

ummm, all of these things sound like pretty terrible business practices. they should all change too, and eventually will one way or another. also, many of the high performance jobs in big F500 publicly traded companies do require fairly specialized education / career path (mba/career equivalent exp). law firms exist to make profit, just like any other business, even if they are a "partnership" instead of a C corp.

timbs4339 wrote:Nothing about "it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs" is inconsistent with that. There are firms where some rainmakers bring in much more business than their compensation would suggest, and those rainmakers do not flee en masse to firms with more flexible compensation structures.

List of partners where this is the case.

This is true at pretty much every firm with a lockstep partnership (Cravath, Wachtell, Cleary, DPW, Debevoise). Several of these firms deliberately took a PPP hit to not lay off associates during the recession. At each of these firms, there are superstar partners who could make many multiples of what they make if they moved to an eat what you kill firm. Yet these firms have some of the lowest partner turnover of any firms out there, because they retain partners not solely using money.

You think Evan Chesler couldn't have made more at Kirkland? Or that Mary Jo White couldn't have gotten a hefty compensation package from a non-lockstep firm instead of going back to Debevoise after being US Attorney, where she made the same as every other senior partner? At all of these firms, there are partners who are responsible for disproportionate shares of the firm's business, but they stick around.